Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Scopes trial as a watershed event in American culture, its entity

3. Historical view on the Scopes trial

4. Conclusion: Consequences of the Scope trial

5. Bibliography


Introduction

Every decade or so America produces a ‘trial of the century’. Despite the fact that this epithet is obviously overused there are still some trials which really have a significant impact on the society at large, its views and philosophy. One of such trials is the Scope trial, which tool place in Dayton Tenn. in 1925 and had a long lasting effect on American culture for decades and is still relevant and quite important.

In fact the Scopes trial is such a kind of trials which deals with the opposition of religious and rational views and their implementation in a wide social scale, especially in education. The problem is that it is always very important to take into consideration the recent scientific research and apply scientific discoveries in education but it is hardly possible to do without the opposition from different groups either civil, standing on the ground of opposite scientific views, or religious, rejecting all scientific researches which do not support the main doctrines of a definite religion. Anyway the Scopes trial and alike are essential since they can provoke public discussions concerning questions of a paramount importance.

The Scopes trial as a watershed event in American culture, its entity

First of all it should be said that in order to understand the significance of the Scope trial it is necessary to discuss briefly its main points revealing its entity. In broader terms, the Scopes trial was initiated in order to solve the problem of introduction of Darwin’s evolutionist views rejected by main religious groups and some scientist as well. In fact, the trial should demonstrate whether American society is ready to implementation of purely scientific approaches to nature at large and human beings in particular separately from traditional and conservative religious views on the same notions.

This trial was marked by the great struggle of two great advocates William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow. They struggle with one another in the test of the constitutionality of a recent state statute against the teaching of evolution in public schools. In fact both sides desired only one legal outcome at the trial: the conviction of John Scopes for teaching from George Hunter’s Civic Biology, a high school textbook that promoted Charles Darwin’s “The Decent of Man”. From the perspective of the ACLU attorneys who arranged and orchestrated the trial, Scope’s conviction would trigger an appeal that might overturn the Tennessee statute.

At any rate, the Scopes trial provoked heat discussions in American society among specialists as well as among ordinary people and what was on the stake was scientific, rational views versus religious ones. Quite naturally the trial had a significant socio-cultural impact and was widely discussed in mass media but what was probably more important is the historical role of the trial which may be justly named a watershed event in American culture. At this respect, as an icon of the triumph of science over religion, the Scopes trial would enter into American public imagination primarily through trenchant, if selective, cynicism of the proto-curmudgeon, H.L. Mencken, who covered the trial for the Baltimore Sun, and later through the gross distortions of historical reality in “Inherit the Wind” the 1955 play by Jerome Lawrence and Robin Edward Lee, which became a hit film in 1960, as well as it was widely covered in critical and analytical literature.
Historical view on the Scopes trial

Obviously the role of the Scopes trial in American culture is difficult to underestimate nonetheless the trial was quite arguable and led to clashes of opposite views on the theory of evolution developed by Darwin. At the same time it is necessary to underline that in historical terms the Scopes trial was absolutely essential and may be treated as a positive event that provided the possibility to view on the problem of evolution and origin of humans from a scientific point of view regardless the opposition from the part of the fundamentalist religion.

In fact it is necessary to say that the trial may be viewed as a juridical reflection of the growing tension between individual liberty and majoritarian democracy. At this respect it is necessary to point out that Larsen in his book “Summer for the Gods” analysis the trial and indicates at the fact that Darrow should be referred to the event as ‘summer for the gods’, which is an odd designation either for a staunch agnostic like himself, or for a devout monotheist like Bryan. It is quite noteworthy that Larson in his research tends to contextualization of the principal characters, i.e. Bryan and Darrow. Taking into consideration Larson’s point of view on the trial and its participants, it is possible to say that many of Bryan assumptions both biblical and scientific, being now outdated, remain quite important. His interpretation of Bible was never literalist but his lack of theological training made him vulnerable to following Darrow’s bait down blind alleys. Bryan new of serious scientific difficulties with Darwinism, such as Darwin’s positing that slight, random variations were enough to generate life from nonlife and to produce the current vast array of biological species. But Bryan mistook the lack of consensus about the particular mechanism advanced by Darwin for a lack of scientific support for the general theory of organic evolution.

In spite of some of Bryan’s deficiencies, he had his own reasons for opposing Darwinism. In fact he opposed the teaching of Darwinism in public schools primarily because he thought the people should exercise local control over curriculum of public schools. But he was opposed to Darwin for two main reasons. First, natural selection was repugnant to Bryan because its central tenet of violent competition was indissolubly linked at the time with unbridled capitalism. Second, the cutthroat competition at the heart of Darwin’s model was also reflected in militarism that led to the senseless slaughter of World War I. The latter reason was particularly important for Bryan as a President Wilson’s secretary of state.

At the same time it is also quite doubtful that if public new more about some aspects of Darwin’s theory interpreted by Hunter in his “Civic Biology” in quite an implausible way. For instance, according to the textbook, prostitution, pauperism, alcoholism, criminality are inherited and “hundreds of families such as those described above exist today spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country” (1984:263). Obviously, it is quite discussable not only from religious but from scientific point of view as well.

Furthermore, as the Larson’s subtitle suggests (i.e. “The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion”) the debate over evolution is not simply of historical interest but continues as a deep conflict to this day. According to the author, this debate is focused sharply on scientific and philosophical difficulties with Darwinism that have nothing to do with how one reads the creation narratives of the Book of Genesis.

At the same time, it is often believed that the issue of evolution was resolved once and for all in the Scopes trial, at which religion lost and science won. In fact it is the main point that becomes clear from the “Inherit the Wind”, the film that focuses on the Scopes trial.

However, such a viewpoint, promoted in the film, is often criticized. For instance, Carole Iannone argues that “Inherit the Wind” is far from reality, moreover, it is even possible to say that the main characters are misrepresented, especially Bryan, who is portrayed as Brady. For instance, it should be said that Bryan was not as adamant about ‘getting the teacher’ as authors Lawrence and Lee depict, what he was really concerned about was not the fine to penalize educators but the Hunter’s textbook, which was quite arguable at some points, as it has been mentioned above.

In such a way the Scopes trial remains quite discussable but still it should be pointed out that the idea that the religion lost to science is quite widely spread, especially among religious orthodox. It was quite natural that different religious groups criticized severely Darwinism and were against teaching of evolution in public schools. At the same time they also had to evolve and adapt to changing situation and eventually religious groups could not fail to agree to accept the division between public education and religion.
Conclusion

Obviously the Scope trial marked the new era when public education and religion had started to co-exist independently. As for historians they traditionally agree that the Scopes trial had played an important role in the development of American culture, including not only its social aspect but political as well since it stimulated the development of democracy and tolerance within American society.

Finally, it is necessary to say that the main conclusion that may drawn from the Scopes trial is the idea that legislatures should not restrain the freedom of scientific inquiry in the observation of empirical data, the positing of hypotheses to account for them and the formulation of a theory that relates these hypotheses and that society should respect the value of academic freedom deprived of religious impact.

However, the scientific and religious issues surrounding Darwinism were not cleared away by the Scopes trial and the debate continues and there may be found more recent examples of similar trials, such as the court’s latest intervention on evolution, in Edwards vs. Aguillard (1985), invalidating a Louisiana law mandating ‘balanced treatment’ by requiring – in edition to the teaching of evolution – the teaching of an alternative to Darwinism known as ‘scientific creationism’. Thus, the arguments started in the Scopes trial would probably be continued.

Bibliography:

1. Caudill, Edward. The Scopes Trial. Knoxville, Tennessee: University of Tennessee Press, 1999.

2. Hunter, George William. Civic Biology, New York: American Book Company, 1984.

3. Larson, Edward J. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.

4. Ongley, John. The Scopes Trial and Social Darwinism. v.2.2, 15 September 2001.

Custom essay writing services ESSAY-911.com. Buy essay online!